What levels are YOU mixing down to for mastering???

[dpaterson]

Hello again.

Yeh I've noticed that WAVES is REAL popular among the pro. fraternity. My very first WAVES plugin was that darn VU Meter plugin and it left a bad taste in my mouth. But I have to admit that my collection of WAVES plugins sure is (sure WAS I mean to say i.e. in light of my one post above) growing steadily!!! LOL!!!

Only thing I have from FabFilter is Pro-Q 2. VERY nice EQ I must say. I saw that special and was very tempted to be honest. But I have to watch myself and be realistic i.e. in just about everything I've worked on for a good while now (have never actually FINISHED anything but that's another story!!! LOL!!!) I inevitably find myself slapping Melda "something or the other" and iZtotope "something or the other" onto tracks (for mixing). And with this latest excursion into mastering (the purpose of this thread) I have to say that I always gravitate to IKM's Lurssen Mastering Console or TRackS 5's "The One" (all depends on my mood!!! LOL!!!). And a lot of the free stuff (there is SOME good out there though) has fallen by the wayside I'm afraid.

But I made this point on a thread (cannot remember if it was this one or another): there's just SO much stuff (plugins) out there and I've kinda come to the point where I don't think I could want for, or need, more UNLESS I was doing this for a living (and even then I'm not sure just how much more one would want for or need). Put it this way: I think I've ALREADY gone too far with all of this stuff. My original goal (this time around and the last attempt) was to put a band together NOT to become a recording / mixing / mastering engineer!!! As it stands NOW: I think I'm better at this recording / mixing / mastering stuff than I am as a musician (as a guitar player anyway)!!! And that will not do I'm afraid!!! Then again: I really don't think it hurts a musician to know about all of this stuff (this just based on some recordings and videos I've seen of bands of late that really are not up to scratch) (but then again: they're "out there" and "doing their thing" so who I am to criticise let's face it).

Regards,

Dale.

[starise]

Yeah, I'm kinda at the same fork in the road. I scanned over 950 plugins. I had no idea I had that many. Lot's of redundancy. I still like to look and occasionally buy. I really like that Fabfilter MB Compressor. If I'm honest with myself I don't need it. I have others that will work probably for me just fine, and if I bought the FF MB I would probably forget the others because then I would have probably the best non hardware based Multi Band compressor on the market.

Waves has a buy one for 29.00 and get the next for $1. It's always the one I don't have I want. I am looking at the Infected Mushroom Pusher. All of the mastering stuff I'll ever need is in Ozone and my Waves collection. Vitamin, CLA Mixdown, Schepps Parallel Particles, they all do similar things to the IK Lurssen Mastering Console. I would still like to try the Lurssen though. Especially since IK have a 10fer 1 going on right now. I'm at that point though
where I need to start using the stuff I already have, and as you say, if we can't do it with what we have we may as well give it up lol! In some cases I think the variety makes the hobby more fun for me. If I can try 4 different EQ's
on a track to get the best sound I have fun in the process.

People tend to make mastering seem so complicated. It is something that takes more than a set of decent plugins. You need to know what they all do, but it really isn't THAT complicated. A mastering chain is a mastering chain. I experimented a bit and combined different plugins of the same type using the same chains, EQ's, compressors, limiters. In most cases unless you have rock bottom crappy plugins a track can can sound good with almost any of the better known and tested plugins. To be sure, there are differences in quality between some plugins and this is all cumulative toward the end result. Poorly written EQ's have negative inter frequency harmonics and noise going on. Poor compressors don't give the right amount of clean gain reduction when it's needed. Some limiters can't seem to leave surrounding freqs. alone when they limit or they can't leave the clean sounding result needed, so I guess I don't agree with what I've heard many say- A daw is a daw and all plugins are basically the same. I don't have it all figured out either. I have some of it figured out.

[dpaterson]

Hello again.

I've read your post above probably ten times. And you know what??? You've said it all i.e. there ain't nothing I can add nor disagree with!!! LOL!!!

And this I like:

I don't have it all figured out either. I have some of it figured out.

Sounds about right!!!

One thing I couldn't help but notice is that you have an HP Omen??? How's that thing??? Must be MONSTER right??? STRANGELY enough: it's also one of those things that I see all the time and have to keep reminding myself that I DO NOT NEED IT!!! LOL!!! That being said: I'm willing to wager that if there were Windows 7 Pro drivers etc. available for it I'd have bought one by now. So much for my "NO MORE SPENDING UNTIL YOU HAVE A HIT DALE" resolve!!! LOL!!! But yeh: they sure do look nice. I've got a HP ProBook 450 G3 (didn't know about the Omen when I bought this). Works for me i.e. no matter what I throw at it from within Mixcraft my System CPU is never over 10% and my Mixcraft CPU is rarely above 5% and RAM usually around 40% (and I must say that it's normally only BFD3 at full res. that causes my figures to climb a bit). So what more could I want (other than an HP Omen of course!!! LOL!!!). Admittedly: I think I'm running the record for the least amount of services running (every time I disable something more I wonder if the thing ain't gonna explode) (or worse still: just not boot anymore!!! LOL!!!).

Regards,

Dale.

[Mark Bliss]

#That moment when you download a promising looking plug-in and Windows reminds "that file already exists".....
I don't remember downloading that!

Yeah, past time to get some work done aye?

[dpaterson]

Aye Cap'n!!! LOL!!!

Regards,

Dale.

[starise]

Hello again.

I've read your post above probably ten times. And you know what??? You've said it all i.e. there ain't nothing I can add nor disagree with!!! LOL!!!

And this I like:

I don't have it all figured out either. I have some of it figured out.

Sounds about right!!!

One thing I couldn't help but notice is that you have an HP Omen??? How's that thing??? Must be MONSTER right??? STRANGELY enough: it's also one of those things that I see all the time and have to keep reminding myself that I DO NOT NEED IT!!! LOL!!! That being said: I'm willing to wager that if there were Windows 7 Pro drivers etc. available for it I'd have bought one by now. So much for my "NO MORE SPENDING UNTIL YOU HAVE A HIT DALE" resolve!!! LOL!!! But yeh: they sure do look nice. I've got a HP ProBook 450 G3 (didn't know about the Omen when I bought this). Works for me i.e. no matter what I throw at it from within Mixcraft my System CPU is never over 10% and my Mixcraft CPU is rarely above 5% and RAM usually around 40% (and I must say that it's normally only BFD3 at full res. that causes my figures to climb a bit). So what more could I want (other than an HP Omen of course!!! LOL!!!). Admittedly: I think I'm running the record for the least amount of services running (every time I disable something more I wonder if the thing ain't gonna explode) (or worse still: just not boot anymore!!! LOL!!!).

Regards,

Dale.

Hi Dale,

I mostly use the desktop I built from a 5820K intel chip. I have 3 500gb SSDs in it and have it over clocked. The whole reason I bought the OMEN was to play with backing tracks on stage. Lately we haven't been running tracks, so I haven't used it as much as I intended to. I will be using it more in the future I think. I use a Keith McMillen Instruments QuNeo controller with it to trigger tracks in Ableton Live. The Qneo is more novelty. Most any controller will do.

A few tips on the HP OMEN. There's a bunch of different configurations of them. Not all of them have the same specs. When I went looking I had a few things on my list that were musts-
-Needed to have two hard drives or SSDs
-If drives were HDD they had to be 7200rpm.
-i7 intl cpu
-at least 16gb of memory

The reason for this is I planned to run Kontakt from the stage at times with a midi controller,so I needed boot OS drive and a library drive. For recording 8gb of memory isn't enough for heavy projects . 5400rpm hard drives are slower than 7200 rpm drives.
Mine also has a killer graphics card since it's really a gamer laptop. It has an M2 or onboard secondary SSD. I have had no issues with it. It is BIG though for a laptop. I should mention not all OMENS have the same screen size.

So if you're looking at these you need to look at the specs. I got a really good deal on mine online.

[dpaterson]

Yelo.

For the sake of interest: following on from the other thread (sample rates and bit depths) after looking at those videos I decided to have a listen to the Metallica album that Andrew is so proud of i.e. saying he's won the loudness war!!! LOL!!! And for some or the other inexplicable reason: just after listening to a few of the Metallica tracks I started listening to something that I'd not listened to in an absolute age i.e. an album by a group called Hellyeah. And for an even more inexplicable reason I opened two of the files i.e. one from Metallica and one from Hellyeah. You think Metallica was "pushed"??? Think again. Odd thing though: the Hellyeah album is nowhere NEAR as ANNOYING (to me anyway) as the Metallica album (but alright: in all fairness I've never been a Metallica fan so that could play a role).

And by the way and in spite of my previously saying that this is NOT a valid representation of a mix: it actually is. My previous comparison was flawed only because of the horizontal zoom level. For this comparison the exact same time slice of each track is zoomed in so you are indeed comparing like for like (the vertical scale does not change ever). Anyway and in addition to the graphical representations: the loudness and peak statistics of the Hellyeah file exceed those of the Metallica file. The files, by the way, are from the actual uncompressed WAV files (1 441kb/s, 44.1kHz, 16-bit) (not from the YouTube audio tracks which, as per Andrew's discussion, may or may not be of the highest quality).

Metallica - This Was Just Your Life (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxg-re3woo0):

Metallica - This Was Just Your Life.JPG (240.72 KiB) Viewed 5024 times

Hellyeah - Hellyeah (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyu5ckar5mQ):

Hellyeah - Hellyeah.JPG (175.22 KiB) Viewed 5024 times

Just for some fun I guess!!!

Regards,

Dale.

[starise]

Old thread I know . I had to laugh..my system is now scanning 1200 plugins lol.....Gotta comment on that Metallica track. They got it wrong. I would not follow others who get it wrong because you will also get it wrong right?

All of the upload sites are going to limit your material if it's out of hand anyway, no matter what you do, so it it best to make sure you send out a track that's mastered in such a way that when they get hold of it it won't be limited into oblivion. There's a little desktop app called EXPOSE that will quickly identify any issues you might have. A free plugin called SPAN by Voxengo that lets you see your levels. LUFS are the most common European format to measure levels now. In the old days it was the db scale.The K-system is also very helpful. These things need to be approached with kid gloves on. There is also the consideration that if a tune only has a few peaks, that track only needs a light touch in terms of messing with the dynamics in it.

Really, there is so much more to "levels" than simply seeing how loud you can make a track and still be safe. You want to assure the QUALITY of the track. Compression and limiting can literally ruin all of the dynamics in a track.

Most who use DAWs and go to these kinds of sites seem to be rockers or poppers ( that's what I call pop mixers.Not to be confused with boppers, that's something totally different.) Then there are a few electronic music dudes hanging around. What do they all have in common? They want their tracks loud and clear. The deal is to use a high end limiter that limits the signal with a very clean result. Sometimes several stages of light compression or limiting are better than hitting the master hard. That way you can preserve the dynamics i.e. contrast in the music

[jlouvar]

FWIW: I never really “Master” any songs... I just mix with my eyes closed, and when it sounds good, it is good (never clips).

[Thomas]

Our friend Dale (the OP) hasn't been around for almost a year. Hope he's doing OK.

[Mark Bliss]

Yeah, aware of that as well Thomas.
Hope he didnt get swamped by pluginitis.

[aj113]

All of the upload sites are going to limit your material if it's out of hand anyway, no matter what you do, so it it best to make sure you send out a track that's mastered in such a way that when they get hold of it it won't be limited into oblivion. ...

This is incorrect. The mainstrain sites don't limit, they loudness normalize. that means they measure the loudness of the file against a target loudness. (Most sites are round about -16 to -14 LUFS currently). If the track is louder than the target loudness then it is simply turned down in level. There is no limiting.

[starise]

My term "limit" was probably misleading. I mean't limit as in limit the volume if the track if it is too loud.
They don't all use the same algorithms.

[r0bbie]

I use 24/48
Record/Mix around ~ -18
Master limiter to -13 LUFS leaving -1db overhead
I check it on https://www.loudnesspenalty.com and look for songs to be about .5-2db over 0.

Works every time for me for streaming music.

As for plugins, I HAD to disable a bunch. Too many made me less creative. So many duplicate functions. Also, I took advantage of the categorizing and it made things WAY smoother. I have one for a couple of the companies (Glitch Machine, Izo, etc) and another called "Mastering." SO much easier. Ditch a bunch you don't aaaaactuuuallly use and everything will be smoother. Also, Mixcraft will run better. You can always turn em back on and you don't even have to restart the program to do it.

[starise]

I hear you on that one. Easy thing to do. A few of my online friends mix VERY basic and their mixes sound amazing.
I usually throw a few plugins I think I need on the track, then turn things off to see how much of a difference it really made. More times than not I'm pulling that plugin out.

On mastering- Some don't feel confident enough to do it and instead use an online mastering service. I also know a few that export an untreated master and use a stand alone program like TRacks or Ozone. IOW the process is separated from the main mix. I have heard both pros and cons for both approaches.

At it's most basic, mastering is generally EQ, light compression or limiting and maybe a few more very basic things. In the old days the Mastering Engineer or ME would use high end gear. Their setup was top notch. The gear often imparted certain desirable things to the end result. One supposed benefit was there was more than one set of ears listening to it. These guys were known for being keen listeners and knowing how to use the right gear at the right time for the right things. At the mastering stage there should be no more thinking about the mix. Only the master.

Now we basically have those tools in programs like Ozone. Some people like to mix and master at the same time hence the reason both processes are kept in the same project. MOST do this as a separate thing, even if they use Ozone or similar.

The premastered mix should have passed the "mix" test for the owner. It generally won't be very loud at that point. Tracks might be -6 to -12 db. Master won't be anywhere near 0db. Muliband limiting, compression and EQ can then shape the end result with respect to the bands. Tracks should have DC offsets removed. Any phase cancellations should have been dealt with in the mix, not the master if possible.